This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
3.10.4 Wildcard Validation Rules, Validation Rule: Wildcard allows Expanded Name from: "then the pair does not ·resolve· to an element or attribute " to: "then the pair does not ·resolve· to a global element or attribute " The fact that only global declarations are searched is otherwise hidden behind the "resolve" reference.
In an effort to make better use of Bugzilla, we are going to use the 'severity' field to classify issues by perceived difficulty. This bug is getting severity=minor to reflect the existing whiteboard note 'easy'.
A wording proposal for this issue (among others) was sent to the XML Schema WG on 4 February 2008. http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200802.html (member-only link) For some issues, the proposal is effectively to make no change; see the Status section of the proposal for the specifics.
During its telcon today, the XML Schema WG accepted the 'Structures Omnibus 2' proposal, which includes changes intended to resolve this issue. (Or, for some issues, contains the editors' proposal that the issue should be closed without further changes.) http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200801.html (member-only link) Accordingly, I'm marking the issue resolved. The originator of this issue (or in some cases the individual, acting on behalf of a group, who filed the comment) should receive an email notification of this change. Please examine the changes and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.
5162 is not listed in Status. I see no changes made for it. While I can live with that, I cannot disambiguate between a conscious wg "no change" decision and accidental omission. Please clarify which case this is so we can proceed accordingly.
Comment #4 says "5162 is not listed in Status". Sorry about that. I may have referred to the wrong proposal: 5162 is listed in the Status section of http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.consent.200802.html (member-only link). It's listed among items for which the editors proposed (and the WG agreed) to make no change. The rationale given in that list for closing 5162 without action was The phrase "resolve to" is used in many places, most of which don't make explicitly claim about the target component being global. I might phrase it in a slightly different way: mentioning the word "global" in the context mentioned here would encourage the misconception that a QName could in theory resolve to a local component -- otherwise, (the reader might reason) surely, no such qualification would be necessary. I hope this helps.
I I can live with that